tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 20, 2012 2:00pm-3:43pm EDT
that is the nature of the pledge that i took. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> social issues. ms. long, you have called roe v. wade a horrible position. you also said that you believe abortion rights should be left to the people to decide. explain exactly what that means. also, do you believe that an update is needed for new york's laws which are antiquated and potentially dangerous for some of you wants to score political points? >> roe v. wade is universally recognized among most scholars. whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, if it were overturned, every state would get the law that they want.
new york has always had very pro-abortion laws. new york can have whatever laws it once and it would not affect it. >> would you advocate for the overturn of roe v. wade? would you like to see it? >> of course. it was a terrible constitutional decision. there was a lot of confusion on this. if it were overturned, the decision would return to the state. each state can decide what policy they want. i am pro-life. there is no doubt about that. i believe that every single human being from conception until natural death has the right to life.
the includes elderly, the disabled, everyone. when i see that little picture of a baby in the ultrasound, that is a human being. it is entitled to respect. that is up to state legislators. as i go around the state, i do not hear anyone talking about abortion issue. my opponent wants to talk about this issue because you want to distract from her terrible record on the economy. >> senator. >> i disagree with my opponent. i believe everyone has a right to make a decision about her productive rights and about her family and when she will begin a family. we have to fight for women's rights. this is not a made up issue. they introduced a bill that would debunk all of title 10, which is the money spent on at-
risk women. it would also redefine rape. this is an issue brought to the forefront by the republican congress. they want bosses to decide whether or not employees should be able to have access to birth control. i had a hearing on the issue. the first panel did not have a female speaker. women's voices must be heard. i urge all women to vote. >> first of all, i am fully in favor of women's rights. i am a woman. i believe in women's rights. there is something else that you -- women's rights cannot the expense of other human beings. there is something else that you said that is completely wrong. no one is advocating making
decisions about anyone else's contracepting. no one is suggesting taking anyone's contraception away. the issue is -- will religious employers and religious institutions and other people's faiths -- and i have the faith that tells me that abortion is evil -- will i be forced to buy such a plan and offer it to my employees? this is a question of infringing the most basic liberty you have. >> we have a question that dovetails into this. >> fundamentally, if you support that, that will give any employer the right to deny any coverage that they have a religious belief that opposes it. 98% of american women use birth control. a majority of women use birth control.
to say that it is evil shows a disregard for the building of a for the ability of a woman to make her personal decision about her body and her family. >> ms. long -- >> i just repeated what she said. that is all. [applause] >> as long as we are on this issue of the war on women, there is a war going on in this state. we have in new york assembly -- atlet's stick to the topic hand. >> we will give you an opportunity to speak on the issues you want to go to. when you talk about -- when democrats talk about the fear that roe v. wade might be overturned, doesn't that relate to fear mongering?
>> i do not think it is fear mongering. this presidential nominee, mitt romney, said he would get rid of planned parenthood. his party has said that there should be no exceptions for abortions. no exceptions for rape, incest, for the life of the mother. that is a serious problem for new yorkers and many women that i know. there has been an effort to undermine basic reproductive rights. look, these are fight and battles that my mother had and that my grandmother had. women of america believe that they should make their own decisions about contraceptions. they do not expect legislators to think that the bosses should make that decision. that is one of the reasons why
andi am making sure that women are heard in this election. women have to vote and hold congressional members accountable. they have to be heard. these are fundamental issues of all right. you talk about the war on women. mitt romney says -- it is an it his hero got rid of equal pay for equal work. it is an issue of fairness. >> you are completely misleading this audience and people who you say employers could decide what a woman could do with contraception. it is completely false. religious and players have the right to subsidize and what it will offer, it is completely -- no one is making any decisions for them about contraceptions. it is completely false. >> employers do not get to pick and choose which laws they will follow.
the amendment would have given any employer the right -- >> we have set up a situation where government dictates your faith. do you know what will happen? the employer will not offer a health care at all. that is where we're headed. >> look, this is a compromise that was reached in the new york state and signed into law by a republican governor for 10 years. i do not think that citizens believe their religious beliefs have been circumvented. is a compromise reached a decade ago in our state. >> let me ask you the original question. i want to ask about the supreme court. make this a brief exchange. who is a model supreme court justice and why? >> i greatly admire justice sotomayor. she has brought a life of experience to the bench. she brings diversity and a different perspective. this is where we disagree vehemently.
she was the number one proponent against sotomayor. disagree with that. i think she will make a tremendous justice and will have a long run. what i said at the time i would be thrilled if the supreme court were filled with nine hispanic women. >> my problem with her is that she does not follow the constitution. we need people who will be modest judges and follow the law. make a lot to suit their political purposes. i cannot believe we are sending spending this much time talking about these issues when people in your car out of work. -- when people in new york are out of work. -- the unemployment rate has gone up over the last year. it seems that all anybody wants to talk about is -- >> we will talk about economic issues some more. >> i admire many justices.
i admire justice stevens. i knew him when a clerk at the court. justice roberts is a good justice too. never agree with every decision somebody and makes. the question is the approach to the law. did apply the constitution? our do they seek to impose our own political views on the bench. that is the test. >> thank you. >> this question deals of the second amendment regarding second amendment rights. you support second amendment rights. you would want to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen. explained why as semiautomatic is something gun advocates would seek to limit or ban?
why do these need to remain legal? >> that is not my only concern at all. i want to preserve what the second amendment says, which is the right to own arms. shall not be infringed. that is an individual right, like the other list of the bill rights. it belongs to us as individuals. that is what i am concerned with protecting. it is for purposes of self- defense. it does all sorts of purposes. that is my concern. what i think it's amazing is my opponent, when she represented this area in congress, she told everyone she kept her gun under her bed. she now has an f rating from the nra. it amazes me how she can do this 180 flip. by the way, in the most basic nra course, they tell you where to store your gun and it is a
bad idea to put it under your bed. [laughter] >> response. >> i support the second amendment and the right of gun owners. we have serious issues across new york. we have a gang violence and gun violence. it is deserving to sit next to a -- i cannot tell you how disturbing is to sit with a mother who lost a child to gun violence. it is inexcusable. what i have to do is make sure that i can protect our families. that means a common-sense reforms that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. the biggest challenges we have is 90% of our weapons come from out of state. 90% are used by criminals. what we have to do is keep those guns out of the hands of
criminals. that is why i have written a piece of legislation that would lock down on them and should the law enforcement have the tools to track them. that is one of the ways we can keep our communities safe. >> she is overlooking the root cause of crime is criminal. you did not solve this problem by hindering the rights of law- abiding citizens. the way to stop the gun violence is to apprehend criminals. criminals do not care what the laws are. they will find ways to get guns and commit violence anyways. all of these restrictions on the basic second amendment right of law abiding citizens who have firearms is not the answer. >> does to be clear regarding the change in the nra reading, -- rating, did you change your ideology between the time that you were a congresswoman representing this area and subsequently become a senator?
did you do that for some other reason? >> my beliefs have never changed. i support the second amendment. what is different is we have done crime issues that were not as prevalent in my old district. i met with a family that lost their daughter. i met with a family that was experiencing enormous amount of gun violence and gang violence. i have to be able to protect those families. i have been outspoken on common-sense legislation that could be bipartisan. it is not about law abiding gun owners. it is about criminals. we need to give the law enforcement the tools to find them. we need to make sure they are not bringing guns in from out of state. >> ok. >> thank you. it is time for our lightning round. we will ask questions that can only be answered by words "yes" or "no." both candidates must refrain from explanations or "maybes."
we will start with senator gillibrand. should new york reinstate the death penalty? >> no. >> yes. >> do you read books on your ipad? >> no. >> no. >> do you watch programs on pbs? -- should public money be used to fund pbs? >> yes. >> not a good use of a public money. i think it. survive without it. >> yes. >> yes, but i could live without it. >> do you write your own tweets? >> yes. >> yes. what have you ever taken part in a political protest?
>> yes. >> yes. >> i do approve and right most of my tweets. >> should cities and towns publicize the names of people arrested for soliciting a prostitute? >> no. >> yes. >> have you ever been arrested? >> no. >> no. ms.e're going to start with long. would you like to be selected as a senate majority leader? >> would i like to be senate majority leader? sure. [laughter] >> senator. >> yes. >> have you fired a gun within the last year? >> yes. >> no. >> it is interco will be best governor in your lifetime? >> no.
>> -- is andrew cuomo the best governor in your lifetime? >> no,. >> no, but his father was. >> have you read "fifty shades of grey?" [laughter] >> no. >> no. >> me neither, for the record. [laughter] >> no comment. >> should there be a national ban on large sugary drinks? >> no. >> no. >> do you read political blogs? >> yes. >> yes. >> have you purchased a lottery ticket within the last year? >> yes. >> no. >> that concludes our lightening round. now it is time for cross- examination. you can ask your opponent one question. response is 60 seconds long.
>> congress is broken. if you are elected, will you break your pledge if there is a deal that has $10 of cuts for every $1 of revenue increase? >> that is a little bit of a false question. we could raise revenue in such a deal without amending the tax did while amending the talks did we could raise revenue while amending the tax code. i am opposed to higher tax rates. what we really need is an economy that will grow. you can cut tax rates tremendously. you can reduce loopholes. we have a pro-growth tax code. you can make more revenue.
i think we should reform the tax code. it needs an overhaul. if we do that and we have a pro-growth tax code, we will see the economy grow and jobs created. at will help us close our debt and deficit. that is a fantastic idea. that is the main way we need to attack debt and deficit. >> ms. long, you can ask senator gillibrand a question. >> you have been an advocate for women's rights and transparency in government. i see this crisis in new york assembly in we have an assemblymen who is sexually harassing women in his office. this is a repeated pattern in this culture of corruption in albany.
the difference in the latest place wasand assembly speaker instead of trying to remedy it, instead took over money in taxpayer money and gave fresh money to -- and used it as hush money to keep these women quiet. this is a scandal. these young women were probably very idealistic. they are working in the state assembly and treated this way by someone in power. what i found outrageous is the actions of the assembly speaker to cover it up. and using tax payer dollars to do that. why did not call for his resignation? we could do that together. >> the allegations against lopez for sexually harassing his
employees is outrageous. it is disgraceful. there is no place in the state for a boss to harass his employees. certainly no place for it in state government. the speaker has asked for a full investigation. there has been a full investigation and why it was permitted to a confidential settlement when we have the facts from that investigation, we will know whether or not that was done improperly. lopez should have paid those finds himself. taxpayer money should not have been used. we do have to hold people accountable. that is why the investigation is important. he was wrong to not have done this in public. >> wasn't it wrong to use taxpayer money to cover it up? we know it was wrong. >> we will get to the bottom of it. if there was wrongdoing, we will
get to the bottom of it. >> he paid $100,000 in hush money. >> we wanted one question and we got one answer. we will move on to some of our additional questions. this one is for senator gillibrand. the affordable health care, also known as obamacare. republicans are calling this a hit on medicare. is the reduction justified? what would you tell senior citizens about the reduction? >> i would reassure senior citizens that those were reforms that strength and medicare and medicaid. it takes some fat out of the system. the money was going to insurance companies. we want to streamline medicare and medicaid to make sure it will be there for seniors and the next generation of seniors. these are the kind of reforms that matter. they strengthen our
entitlements. at the same time, they get rid of fraud or abuse. >> ms. long. >> i'm sorry, but i have to return to the topic i was addressing. you said of the speaker that he should have resigned. use of the speaker should resign in an analogous situation six years ago. there is taxpayer money to cover up the sexual harassment that was going on. how do not ask him to resign? >> there is an ongoing investigation right now to get to the bottom of it. with the speaker, it was a bipartisan call for him to resign for what he was covering up. >> there was an investigation going on with the speaker? >> we'll move on to any question jake -- we're going to
move onto a new question at this point. at this point, we know there is a hot presidential race going on. polls are tight. if president obama is reelected and you are also successful on election day, you will have to work with the president of the opposing party. can you please in one area where you agree with the president? where do believe you could work together to benefits new yorkers? >> first of all, i believe president obama has been the one who has not been willing to come have we work with people in the senate. he sent a budget that he knows no one will vote for. that is really the problem here. we're not seeing compromise from his side in the white house.
>> we do not know who will control the senate at this point. assuming you will be senator and he will be president,what could you work with him on a? >> if he is interested in reducing our deficit as he said he is, if he is interested in reviewing our deficits, i would work with him on that. i would be willing to cut any and all areas of the federal budget. >> not if it comes to raising taxes? >> spending right now. >> senator gillibrand, if mitt romney is elected, what is an area that you have of agreement with him? >> as governor, he fought for health care. for all residents of massachusetts. >> we got that done. according to the supreme court, it is considered constitutional. it is something you could work with him on.
>> there are, and values we can -- there are common values we can come together on. i reached across party lines to make sure we protect our heroes and get them the health care they needed. when i spoke this on friday passed a health care bill, and reached across the aisle to make sure to help our heroes and protect them and help that they desperately need. we were able to repeal but corrosive and negative policy that undermines our military. i can find common ground with the senators. i would look toward president romney on where we can agree. i suspect we could agree on national-security issues. national security is not as partisan. we want to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear-weapons. that is an area and where we can get along.
>> there are some jewish voters or remain unconvinced about the president, the current one, particularly when it comes to iran and its nuclear program. the president did not meet time -- make time to meet with that israeli president benjamin netanyahu. they were dismayed at that. what should the president doing differently when it comes to israel? >> i know that president obama is an ally of isreal. we have worked side by side to make sure that iran never attains a nuclear weapons and is now reach the capability. all options are on the table. jake and does not militarize their capability. all options are on the table. i took him at his word. president obama and the prime minister of israel have a strong relationship. they talk all the time.
whether or not to make a meeting on a given day is not the measurement of their relationship. they are collectively working on sanctions and putting enormous pressure on the countries of that we can convince the i ran people to rise up against their leadership or to convince assad -- ahmadinejad that he has to join the economic community and stop pursuing a clear weapons. -- stop pursuing nuclear weapons. i have no doubt in my mind that president obama is 100% allied with israel on security. >> this administration's policies with regards to israel is incomprehensible. our relationship with israel is at an all-time low. president obama is responsible for that. if i were the senator, i think a senator should stand up and be an advocate for israel.
we have not done what israel wants us to do. it is clear we have not done it is real want us to do. iran is marching toward nuclear capability. i agree with secretary hillary clinton. we have to make sure that the military option is on the table. we have to make clear to iran that if they go ahead with an attack, they will meet with reprisal from us. this president has not done that. they are still negotiating iran and it is not working. they are marching very close to that red line. >> rebuttal? >> i disagree. we are hand and glove with israel. president obama will make sure that america is safe. he has on his commitment to
national security. when he came into office, we were in iraq and afghanistan. he has been able to take on osama bin laden. we are out of iraq. he is making sure our country is safe. he wants to make sure that iran never obtained nuclear weapons. >> it is wonderful to kill osama bin laden, but we cannot rest on our laurels and take victory laps when the head of islam and terrorism is rearing its ugly head out the middle east. we saw this at the federal reserve today. it is still a dangerous world. radical terrorists still want to kill us. this is not the right direction to be going in by leading behind and letting the situation get out of control and letting iran to continue to march toward nuclear capability. then they will not only be able to arm themselves, but armed terrorists. >> question for ms. long.
do you think u.s. involvement in afghanistan was a mistake? should there have been a public deadline for withdrawal? >> it was not a mistake. we went in for a good reason -- to go after the terrorists who caused the 9/11 attacks on america in new york. we need to disable al qaeda. that is our goal. what bothers me is that when the president initiated this, he did so with a timetable as well. it seems to me that his timetable has been politically driven and not driven by military reality our national security and the need to defend our country. the whole timetable has disregarded the recommendations of the general.
it is not for the purposes of winning over al qaeda. >> i believe we should be out of afghanistan right now. 10 years ago, we were attacked and 9/11 by al qaeda. they created a base of operations and training ground in afghanistan. it is important to take? -- it was important to take out al qaeda and their operations and take osama bin laden. we have done that. al qaeda has now become an international a remotely operated organization. the last attacks have taken place is from pakistan or yemen. today very al qaeda is left in -- afghanistan. karzai does not respect the
lives given for the stability of his country. there is ripe corruption in his government. we should not put our money in -- and troops in afghanistan. the threat has moved. we have threats in pakistan. we should have a counter terrorism approach as opposed to the capture and search approach. -- counter insurgency approach. we need narrow, targeted missions against terrorism. that would be preferable. >> i certainly agree on al qaeda. we cannot limit our concern to afghanistan. i saw some of these people. we thought they were our friends when they were the freedom fighters and fighting the soviet union. it is difficult sometimes to know who your allies are and who you can trust.
i think there might be a limited role to continue to play in afghanistan and be more nimble. there are other places where we need to combat terrorism. >> senator, this question is for you. back to the economy. senator clinton pledged she would bring 200,000 jobs to upstate. new york lost jobs while the eight years she was in office. what have you done to help the economy? what would you support and the believe fracking should be part of that mix? >> all in one minute? >> yes. [laughter] >> i can stand are unique challenges.
-- i am from upstate new york so i understand our unique challenges. i also understand are unique opportunities. what we have going for us is an incredible system with our private and public colleges. we have the best work force in the world. we have a great manufacturing tradition. where opportunities lie is in manufacturing. we have biotechnology. we have energy technology. we have office technology all across our state. that is why funding in research and development is so important. it is why we have to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit for all of our engineers and our ventures. that is how businesses can be created. that is where opportunity is. we need to see it right here in upstate new york. we have the tools and what it takes. that is what will turn the economy around.
>> you believe the future is in what might be called "clean tech." there is manufacturing that is not clean tech. is drilling something you would support? >> we have unlimited opportunity in by a fuel and wind and solar. we produce those technologies on -- and those products right here in new york. we want to make a longterm investment there. it is a significant economic opportunity. what we need to make sure of before we start hydro fracking is to understand the facts. there are three things we need to know before i would be encouraging that in new york. first, what are the chemicals and formulas used? have there been any studies about the health of facts of those formulas and chemicals? second, when you drill down weekly, when you bring the water -- drill deeply, when you
bring water back up, it can be read it --radioactive. you have to have in place an agreement on how to clean it up. one of many things we have going for us in new york state is clean drinking water. agriculture and tourism rely on that. we have to protect our drinking water. i want to get to the bottom of those questions before we proceed. >> the initial question was, what have you done to bring jobs back to a state? the answer is nothing. as i go around our state, i see
towns with in the store fronts, and factories that have been shattered. the paint peeling off of buildings. people desperate for work and jobs. your only answer to this is to introduce jobs bills. it is a nice title. they are really taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers and handing it out to others favored by you. jobs are created by people and the private sector. we need to cut taxes and regulation. he need to get going wit fracking or natural gas. you are citing phony concerns. this has been completely study. it has been happening for decades in ohio and west virginia. it is called the gold rush of west virginia. the economies in those areas are booming. there has been no evidence this is polluting drinking water. these are phony concerns.
the people of upstate need to get going with it. what can happen is a manufacturing renaissance. the price of energy could come down so much we could get manufacturing going again. you go run the state and hear about plant closings. people being laid off. because of the medical device manufacturing tax in obamacare that you are advocating, it is costing jobs. >> can i respond? my concern is simple. you told a reporter you believe the economic benefits outweigh any health risks that can be caused by methane in drinking water. >> they do not outweigh them. there are no health risks.
[laughter] >> to the extent that there are any health effects, you said the economic opportunities outweigh the health effects of methane in drinking water. the concern i have is this. how do you talk to another who asks how much methane children can be exposed to? those are not questions a mother should have to ask. it is an economic opportunity. but before we destroy our clean drinking water that powers two major industries, we should make sure we have all the facts. my question is, why we do not want to know the facts? we have a bill in congress to get to the bottom of the chemicals. they should be disclosed. why we do not want to know that? >> they will be disclosed. methane is a naturally occurring thing coming up for centuries. there are historical markers coin new york mentioning where
it was happening in the 1700's. the movies where you light the faucet, this is naturally occurring. it has nothing to do with fracking. it is a complete myth. >> we may want to cut you off abruptly to make sure you get your statement. you oppose the dream act. imagine talking to thousands of young people in new york, how would you explain the country is better off if they were deported? >> i do not necessarily think they should be deported. we desperately need immigration reform to be done properly by congress, not by an unconstitutional part of the president. we need to secure our borders. there is no better evidence than the attempted terrorist attack. we need to know who is coming in
and going out. when we have secure the border, we should proceed to immigration reform. that means completely reforming our immigration laws and coming up with an orderly process to address the people you are talking about. if people are here illegally and have committed crimes, we need to get them repatriated as soon as possible. if they are here and not have family connections, that is another story. if they are brought here as a young person, i think it is correct to establish a path where through military service they could gain a path to legality. >> i believe in comprehensive immigration reform. part of the richness of our society in new york is because of our immigrant heritage. we need to make sure we have common sense reforms that allow families to be reunified, to make sure a child who comes here
through no fault of their own can have a pathway to citizenship. i think this is the kind of bill we could have positive progress on in the next congress. >> i am sorry to cut you off. we are out of time. we have covered a lot of ground. that is all the time we have four questions. it is time for closing remarks by the candidates. you will have 60 seconds for both of these. senator, we will begin with you. >> i want to thank new york and skidmore for hosting the debate. i want to thank wendy long for joining me in the debate. in my short time in the senate, it has been an honor to represent you. i hope i will be blessed to have a chance to continue doing that and continued to fight for middle-class families. let's be clear. there is a lot at stake in this election. there is a real choice between
whether we're going to continue to go forward or go backwards. i know new york can lead the way in economic recovery. to do that we need to focus on our strengths. our world-class universities and educational institutions, our commitment to advanced manufacturing. our great workers who can compete with anyone in the world if given a level playing field. i know we can come together in this election and get things done. i know we can do that because in the senate, i have done that. >> i have been around the state talking to people who agree with me that this november 6 is not just an election. it is an emergency. sitting around kitchen tables around the state, people want common-sense reforms. they know we're broke. they want us to stop spending money we do not have. they want better education for
their children. they want us to reform taxes and get affordable health care. they want us to cut the red tape strangling small business. as i go around the state, people say they do not trust the democrats. they also say they do not trust the republicans either. that is the voice of common sense. professional politicians in both parties have gotten us into this. i believe the greatness of america and prosperity is within our reach. we just have to pull together and do it. i would be privileged to represent you and the state of the york region new yorki ask for your vote on november 6. >> that concludes tonight's debate. it was lively and interesting. thank you both for participating. >> we would like to thank skidmore college for the use of the theater. thank you and good night. remember, election day is november 6.
>> he told police he was the ideal candidate for the tea party. now suddenly he is saying, who me? he is forgetting what his own traditions are. he is betting that you will, too. he is changing so much, backtracking and sidestepping. we have to name this condition he is going through. i think it is called romneysia. >> this election will be a choice between the different americas. an america where government makes the rules, is larger, takes more from the american people an increasingly runs our lives. or instead an america where we restore the principles that made it the nation it is. we bring back the principles of
the declaration of independence. recognized abroad gave us our rights. -- recognize that god gave us our rights. that includes the right to pursue happiness. >> president obama and mitt romney meet in their final debate moderated by bob schieffer in florida. the previous starts at 7:00 eastern followed by the debate at 9:00. your reaction at 10:30. with the focus on the presidential debates, c-span is asking students to send a message to the president as part of the video documentary competition. students will answer the question, what is the most important issue the president should consider in 2013? there is $50,000 in total prize is available. the competition is open to
students in grades 6 through 12. the rules, go online to c- span.org. >> tomorrow morning, and we will focus on the presidential campaign with amy walter. then look at how the campaign is playing out in key battleground states. we will hear from joe thomas in virginia. at 9:00, we will be joined by mark simpson. we will hear about the campaign in ohio from michael alwood. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. the candidates for the open senate seat in texas are ted cruz and paul sadler.
they met in dallas last night for their final debate. our coverage is courtesy of kera tv. >> we are broadcasting live from the studios in dallas and online. during the next hour, i will be the moderator for the final debate between republican ted cruz and democrat paul sadler. welcome gentlemen. welcome to my colleagues and panelists. we have the executive editor for the texas tribune, and the news anchor and reporter from houston.
we invite you to join the conversation on line. we will begin by diving into important policy issues tonight beginning with the concerns many of the top of their list. >> a lot of people come for a better way of living. coming here, they should stay here if they can abide by the simple laws of no stealing, not doing anything crime worthy. >> the children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay. the initial illegal immigrants should be deported. >> they are illegal. they should go home. >> they are working at the jobs we do not want to work out. >> legalized them and make sure we collect income tax. >> we are going to start our discussion on immigration with a question from peggy. it goes to paul sadler.
>> we're looking for some specifics of how you address the 1.6 million or more, people without documentation. how would legal status work? >> it's important for us as a state to deal with this issue. if we don't start dealing with it, 10 years from now we're going to still deal with it. we have a very rich, diverse culture. we need to secure our border. we ought to pass the dream act. we ought to do a temporary work permit so they can actually participate as the gentleman describe on the screen. and there should be a reasonable pathway to citizenship. that can be not at the front of the line but at the back of the line. you can put whatever restrictions we want as long as they're reasonable. speak english, not having commited a crime and these things will help us move past this.
our strength in our state is diversity. no one's giving amnesty. they still have to earn their right to become an american citizen. but we need to get past this because our state's too important to be divided as it is. >> mr. cruz, you want to strengthen border security and you want employees to verify immigration status. you want to ensure that. how would that affect the people who are already here without documents? do you think that will go away? >> i think immigration is an issue that we have to address from many directions. i understand firsthand that we live in a nation of immigrants. we live in a land that has been a beacon of hope and opportunity to people all over the world. and i think immigration reform needs to address illegal immigration and legal immigration. with respect to illegal immigration i think as a subject of national security we need to get serious. both parties have talked about this a long time. the parties are interested in demagoguing.
we need to get serious about securing the border. >> can you specify it? how would you address the people that are here? because securing the border would prevent people from coming but there are 1.6 people already here. what would we do with them? >> i think we need a staged approach. the first stage is getting through all the talk and actually securing the border and that involves fences, walls, technology that involves boots on the ground tripling the border patrol agents so we can actually know who's coming in this country. i think we need to combine that with a strong e-verify system that requires proof to be here legally to be able to get a job. i think it would enable a rational conversation of legal immigration. we need to improve legal immigration which i don't think we can have that conversation until we can demonstrate we can
strengthen the border. >> but until then, people are still here. will that be worked out later? >> as i said the first step is secure the borders. once we demonstrated we can solve that problem, then we can have a rational conversation about what are the demands and improve the system where people wait years or even decades to come here legally. as a practical matter we're not going to be able to get that done until we can actually show with can secure the borders. >> follow that a little bit. do you think you're out of step with your party because you have a guest-worker program that the convention supported this as you were. the republican party supported it. you don't support that.
>> i think my views are consistent with the views of most texans. i have traveled listening to texans. it's only in the political world that this stuff gets complicated. for most texans, americans they're concerned about a border that's not secure. they're concerned about the fact that we don't know the background of those coming in this country particularly in a post 9/11 world. it is important and my message from day one in this campaign is we should continue to be a nation that welcomes and celebrates immigrant. as you know i am the child of an immigrant that came here with nothing. >> do the people that are already here not get dealt with? >> i think the way to move forward and have a discussion is to start by securing the border. >> just a minute because we've giving you a lot of time. would you like to add anything? >> sure. one of ways you can deal with it is give people work permits.
it identifies who is here. they participate in of the program through taxes. when it's up, it's time to go home or apply for citizenship. to do nothing leaves us where we are. to secure the border -- you know, we all want to secure the border but i walked the border in el paso with the border patrol. and i asked them what kind of surveillance do we have here? we're basically using vietnam era surveillance. i went to fort bliss, i said can you train border patrol with that surveillance? they said absolutely we could. here we have the most modern
surveillance. so why aren't we doing that? and the answer was why has no one asked us to. i did. i think it is important. >> we're going to move on to another subject, a topic that involves immigration. >> mr. cruz, the united states wet foot-dry foot program allows cubans to come here and it's an opportunity not available to immigrants from other countries. should we extend that to others? >> well, the reason we have a different legal status for cubans is because the situation in that country is different. it is an oppressive, totalitarian regime that tortures and murders its citizens. the united states for centuries has allowed a situation of people seeking refugee status from political oppression and torture. i'll point out this is something for me that's in the about tract.
i will point out that this is not abstract for me. my father was imprisoned and tortured. my aunt was imprisoned and tortured. my father was tortured by batista and my aunt was tortured by castro. i would love to be part of anything for this adjustment act. if there is a regime that respects the rights of its citizens and doesn't persecute the rights of its citizens, of course, we should clang the rules. but until that happens, i think it's important to recognize the oppressive regime. in cuba. >> are there other people that we should extend that policy to? >> it's been long standing for people feeling political persecution, we have granted them refugee status. and that's been true for nations all over the world. >> mr. sadler? a i think it's locked in to comprehensive immigration reform which is what we need. we need it for our state. we need it for our nation. we deal with a billion dollars
of commerce. the people coming from mexico here are seeking a better way of life. they're seeking part of work. they're seeking part of the american way of life. and i think that it only makes sense that we do a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes everyone. i think it's the only way we get past this moving forward. and the diversity of our state is so important and this economic engine with mexico, they're our number one trading partner. we talk about increase border patrols. we have 26,000 border agents today. if you triple them that would be 100,000 border patrol agents on the border. would you do these things with people that are part of our community, part of our heritage and our families? i think we've had enough
division on this issues. and this describe with cuba we should have a comprehensive program. >> we're going to move on to another question involving immigration. this one comes from pedro rojas. >> thank you, gentlemen for being here with us tonight. as you know president obama, the fair action program has given a lot of hopes for young people in our done there that are awaiting to get either a legal status. if elected, what would you do? >> it's an executive order. >> it is an executive order, so i could not do anything about that. if you talk to these young people, there were brought here by their families.
they have been raised here in our schools. there are as much an american, but simply did not have a document. the only one the american way of life. we are america. if we cannot see past giving them a chance, there is something wrong with that. they deserve the opportunity. they have been in our system. many have thought in our military. many have gone to iraq and afghanistan. this is a travesty for us, i think, as a state and as a nation. i would support the dream act. my concern about the executive order is that it can be taken away. you have these young people who have trusted it and identify themselves and their location. and then a new president comes in and would jeopardize them, that is not right. these are innocent, young people.
>> i want to hear mr. cruz's side. senator rubio has proposed -- what would be your view? >> just a few months ago, president obama was asked if he had authority to do this. his response six months ago was that he had no constitutional authority to grant amnesty without changing the federal immigration laws. as the closer to an election, suddenly the authority materialized. one of the things people come to the united states from all over the world is because we are a nation that respects the rule of law. i do not think we should have a president that is setting aside the laws. this was an action that was contrary to law.
it was done for a political purpose. i think immigration reform should proceed through congress and through public debate and through the legislative process. it should not be through an abuse of executive authority. >> thank you. >> thank you to everyone. i will move on and find out how the candidates are going to do with another important issue to voters who have strong opinions about this issue. it is the issue of the economy. >> we need some changes legally for big corporations to have an incentive to stay in this country and provide good employment for people. >> if you export jobs to other countries, you will never maintain a good and healthy job in this country. >> for someone young let me, the most important thing is jobs. help small businesses. >> social security is not an entitlement. i worked my butt off for years. my money should be there.
>> i am not sure how they will do it. will they take it away from medicare? will the increase the burden on certain segments of our population? >> ok, we will start by talking about the federal debt. you have both said it is a top priority for you. as you both know, entitlements make up about 40% of the federal budget. you would have it reduced, including medicare. many people consider it our right of theirs and they're counting on it. you want to cut costs by giving about your to people to buy the medicare. the budget office has said that over time this will force seniors to pick up the costs themselves. why do you think this is a good way to provide medicare to our
seniors? >> let me start with principles. social security and medicare are a foundation of promises to have made to our seniors. we need to honor those promises. there is a real difference in politics on how the two parties are approaching this. >> why is this a good idea? >> i am saying exactly that. right now, social security and medicare are careening toward solvency and bankruptcy. harry reid and the democrats are doing nothing to save those programs. we need to reform the program so that they remain viable for the next generation that is retiring. that is what i think they should do. >> talk about the vouchers if you can. >> the proposal from governor romney and paul ryan is not a doctor.
what it does is that it gives a penny for every existing benefits and for people who are young, it provides two options -- one, that is the with traditional medicare, or two, the can have the choice of having premium support that will enable them to purchase a policy in the private marketplace. that will bring competitive forces to reducing costs. >> critics believe that the private insurance will always accept those seniors who are fairly healthy, but for the sickest seniors end up being on a government plan. this does not pan out.
>> the proposals to be we have a prohibition on skimming off of the healthy seniors. this idea of premium support has a long and bipartisan history. many democrats have supported it previously. it is only been in the past couple of years, coincidentally when the presidential race began, that the democrats are now demagoguing this issue. they do not have an alternative. when you ask president obama how to save medicare, he does not have an answer. as and obama took billions
of dollars out of medicare to fund obamacare. that is going backward. >> let's ask mr. sadler. clearly we need to save some money. >> we have to make some hard decisions. we can keep them for all of them. this is the promise we made to each other. we want seniors to live with dignity and have hospital coverage. one, you can raise the gap. you can apply taxes to it. if you make above a certain level, you do not. when social security was formed -- >> and talk about medicare. >> i will. the income has dropped down to 83%. if it was brought down to the original framework, we would add a decade and after social
security. we could save social security for all of us. medicare is more difficult. look at the rising health care costs. we do not have an answer to look at rising health care costs. we have health care costs been going through the roof. one of the things that the affordable health care act does in combination with what we have seen in medicare and how it modifies medicare is that it others those two things together. there's a cap on health care costs. the affordable health care act gazette. the extensive program. >> and do you see any cuts that
you would reduce? or would you allow it to continue as it is? >> there are cut on things like administrative costs and salaries and things for the providers, but it maintains the benefits. those are the things that matter. the $716 billion cut from providers, we will have to watch that. are we going to make those cuts too soon and too fast? we will have to monitor that. every program you enact requires that type of watching to make sure it works out and it works correctly. the affordable health care act does -- >> thank you. we will move on. you do both support very different plans in how you would approach this. we will move onto another question. this one goes to mr. sadler. >> everything should be on the table, including letting the bush tax cuts expire, even for the middle class.
why is that a good idea? >> i am not sure i can explain this as well as i can. let me try. our debt is at 16 trillion dollars. i hate the debate we're having in this country. we are writing tax policy basically a what is your constituency and your political party. it is the obligation of all of us. we have to cut spending and balance our budgets. even if we do that, we might eliminate the deficit in some time in the future. not all we are still in afghanistan. pay down the national debt
requires more an era. yet to make revenue at some time. when you do that, it is a shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. >> please summarize. we are running a little bit behind. we're getting great answers, but we need to be sustained. >> ok. >> thank you. >> it may not happen all at once or immediately, by we do need to discuss it. i do not like the we are pitting one american against another. >> the ceo of the congressional budget office has suggested that when the bush tax cut? i would be an up to provide enough money to avoid the fiscal cliff everyone has been talking about. is a country better off? >> i think if we raise taxes,
it would kill jobs. independent businesses have estimated that barack obama's plan for raising taxes on small businesses and owners that it would kill jobs in our economy. our economy should be about choices. it is a clear choice between mitt romney and barack obama. in this race it is a clear choice. if i am elected, i will not support raising taxes on any texans. my opponent has said that every taxpayer in texas, he would consider raising taxes on. he is aggressively more pro tax raising than barack obama. my opponent has said that he would raise taxes on every taxpayer.
that is a sharp contrast. that is a choice for the texans to make. >> can i come in here? >> sure. >> your not going to pay down that national debt by cutting spending. you cannot do that. no one with any intelligence has come to that conclusion. we have to pay down our national debt, but -- >> thank you. >> the national debt is a shared responsibility for every american. >> can i jump in here? this is the most important topic that we are discussing. >> we will allow you to answer succinctly if you can. we will ask one more question on the economy. go ahead. >> i agree with mr. sadler that
we cannot solve the national debt by cutting spending. the only way to do that is to grow. what we need to do and be is the aggressively pro-growth. we need to get growth up to historical levels. that is they turn around the debt. that is how you get to do 3 million people out of work. >> let me ask you something quickly. if you were to eliminate the income tax for the highest earners, it is estimated that by doing that alone you would avoid the fiscal cliff. we would not be in the position we are on now. why does not not a good solution?
>> it would kill jobs. if you talk to texans in the state, the issue they are most concerned about is jobs and the economy. if you raise taxes on job owners and entrepreneurs -- the best way to get things done is scaling back the abuse of regulation from this administration that is hurting small businesses and tax reform. that is how you create jobs. >> that is not a history that is correct or correct. you cannot grow your way in this. not any intelligent person that has looked at this. they are simply too great.
we can be honest about this and with the tether and americans are we can keep on doing this simple answers over and over again and keep digging a deeper hole. >> would you maintain the tax cuts for the highest income earners? are we to eliminate it? >> you have mixed up the fiscal cliff with the national debt. they are different issues entirely. i plan to reduce the national debt can take place anytime in the future. to avoid the fiscal cliff is about cutting back on spending and balancing our budget. what i am saying to people is that if you are serious about reducing the national debt, we
will have to put some kind of plan in place. there should be a shared responsibility from all. we need to pay down our national debt. >> quickly -- >> when america was attacked on 911, we were all attacked. >> you can either cut spending and try to jack up the prices, but other way can do is to cut spending and an act program policies that will allow businesses to create jobs. >> we want to continue talking about jobs.
pedro has the next question. i think it goes first to mr. cruz. >> in july, the republicans in the house my view in terms of deconductions -- deductions is we should take over the tax code. one of the things i'm optimistic about is next year, the next couple of years, we'll have the potential for real bipartisan cooperation. right now, $500 billion a year is spent just on tax compliance, on lawyers, on account tabt -- on accountants, on wasted expense, that's about the same amount as our entire defense budget. if we simplify the tax code, and you look historically, some of the greatest examples of bipartisan defense have been tax simplification, whether under
john f. kennedy or ronald reagan, where you saw both parties come together, lower marginal rates, broader rates, that's how you get growth. >> that was called raising -- taxes. if you lower the rate and broaden the base and get the same amount of revenue and say you're going to close loopholes, loopholes are deductions by some business or entity that wants them. you're requiring that entity or group to pay more in taxes. you are raising taxes. mr. romney is raising taxes, mr. obama is talking about raising taxes and so are you. i've been through this before. i went through it with the state of texas. we tried to close loopholes, exemptions and deductions, lower property tax rates and every group in the state said you're raising taxes. you're raising tacks on us. do it to somebody else but not me.
the big shock will be if you get elected to the united states senate, if you try to do that, the u.s. chamber, grover norquist who you pledge your support to, will jump out and immediately say, you're raising taxes. six year fls now, someone will be sitting in this chair and accuse you of raising taxes by closing those lap hole -- loopholes. you'll say, paul sadler told me that's true. if you close loopholes and remove deductions you're raising taxes. >> go ahead and respond. >> i think mr. sadler and i have different definitions of raising taxes. if you eliminate loopholes and don't lower rates, that is raising taxes. but if you eliminate loopholes and lower rates so that the tax rates are not going up, that's not raising taxes but you look historically, every time that's been done, revenue goes up.
i am all for increasing revenue through growth. through helping, if small businesses are doing better, if more people have jobs that are producing more, tax revenue goes up but not through jacking up rates but helping small businesses and entrepreneurs create more economic growth. >> every time you take away someone's exemption and they're paying a tax they didn't pay before, they'll say you raised my taxes. >> it depends. it's true if you done lower the marginal rate. but if you eliminate a deanaheim mighty ducks and lower the rate the amount of tax paid on that income can be the same. that's not raising taxes if you're writing a tax -- a check for the same amount. >> in the to you but if you lower charlie's taxes and lower my deductions, that's a tax increase. >> it is a tax increase. >> we could talk about this all night it's very important and interesting but we want to take advantage of the time we have left to talk about a few other things. we're going to get back tooth policy discussion in a moment. what we want to do now is give both of you an opportunity to compare your records so based on a coin toss, mr. cruz you get to
speak first. tell us why you believe you would be the better senator for texas to send to washington. >> there are two approaches to the economy and job creation. one is continuing down the road of the obama democrats, more and more spending, more and more debts, higher taxes and more and more regulation of the economy in our lives. we tried that for three and a half years and it doesn't work. the my is struggling. the median income in this country has gone down $4,000 under president obama. the other approach is the approach exemplified by ronald reagan. lower taxes. restrain government spending. empowering small business, empowering entrepreneurs. i'm proud to have the support of the national federation of independent business, of the texas association of business thombing u.s. chamber of commerce, of small business owners in texas because my focus is going to be helping
small business owners create jobs. that's how we turn our economy around. >> mr. sadler, why would you be the bedder -- better senator? >> i've done the things he talks about. i've been in the legislature, aye passed the bills, i've heard thousands of hours of committee hearings with texans from all over the state. i was in the legislature from 1991 to 2003. i left when my youngest son was involved in an accident. i served on a number of committees. i'm co-author of the education code, passed teacher pay raises, the largest property tax cut in the history of our state. i passed -- i was -- since then i've been involved in the wind industry and in that capacity aye also, governor brownback, the republican governor of kansas, asked me to help solve the tall grass prairie preservation in kansas and i helped negotiate that. governor mary fallon in oklahoma asked me to help.
governor perry requested that i went to morocco and got a memorandum of understanding between morocco and the state of texas. i have experience doing the thing he is talks about doing. >> we're going to move on to policy discussion. from the economy, to health care. what kind of system we should have here in this state. we asked voters and here's what they told us. >> i feel that federal health care plan known as obama care is a step in the right direction. we do need a more comprehensive health care plan. >> i'm a freelance artist, for many years, i haven't had insurance. there are a lot of other people that don't have insurance and i think it's wonderful that people can be supported. >> because macare is overreach by the federal government actually requiring citizens to purchase a product. i think that's a little too much. >> i think throw the whole system in the garbage and start over. >> ok. some opinionated voters there. we're going to start our discussion on health care first
with a question to paul sadler. >> texas has many doctors right now who won't take medicaid patients we have right now. how to you propose to solve that for people who currently have medicaid and for the millions more being proposed to be added to medicaid rolls? >> we have to do whatever we can to make sure we keep as many physicians willing to take medicaid patients as possible. you hear two different stories. you hear a story from the doctors saying that they won't do medicaid but you talk to people that are involved with medicaid, the pearnts with children that are voed, the cancer patients dependent upon, -- upon it, they say they have plenty of doctors and are getting great medical kear. it's always a concern. the fact of the matter is you hear different stories depending on who you talk to. i don't know that the surveys we've seen on the number of physicians not doing medicaid truly represent the actual
numbers. i'm not sure that there's partition -- that there's participation in the surveys. that being said, we reduce it by making sure that medicaid reimburses the benefits, the payments that are necessary. we fund the local hospitals, i fought for funding for the local hospitals. i know what that means. >> thank you. >> do you think the government has a responsibility to provide access to care for people we're adding to medicare? and if so, how to we do that? >> well, medicaid has been a social safety net we've had for many years and i think we need to continue to honor that commitment. if you look right now, medicaid is another one of those entitlements careening toward insolvency. harry reid and the democrats in the senate are doing nothing to step up and solve that problem and preserve medicare. we need leadership there. beyond that, how do you deal
with low income texans who earn too much income to qualify for medicaid and yet not enough income to be able to purchase health insurance themselves? i think the answer are free market reforms, in particular, allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. if we create a 50-state national market, what that will mean is that texans will have available to them a lot more low cost catastrophic health insurance plans and the biggest barrier to access right now is the cost of insurance is too high. if we created a 50-state national market, we can lower the cost dramatically and expand access, allowing texans to purchase health care. >> we're going to continue with this line of questioning. peggy will take it further. >> it's said it would be cheaper for people to go to emergency rooms to get health care than add them to medicaid as an expansion of the program.
what evidence do you have to support that? >> the context of that question is, i was asked, gosh, wouldn't it save money for everyone to expand medicaid and put a large portion of additional texans on medicaid? and the answer was no. it's not a cost saver to do that. the answer for those individuals is what ross and i were just talking about. having free market reforms to create a 50-state national market so people can afford health insurance. that's a far better way than putting them on government provided single payer health insurance. >> how do you think they'd be able to afford the type of insurance available in a 50- state market? >> what you do ve deuce the barrier rerks deuce the mandates driving up the cost of health insurance and with the availability of low cost health insurance, the basic principles of supply and demand operate in that market as with any other.
if the costs drop a lot more people can afford it. >> and it's not working. it's not working. that market as in any other market, health care costs will go down. but we know, rural citizens know, that's not true. they're going up. you can create the market, 50 states or whatever, but the fact is that you're going to have people in this country who cannot afford the health care and you're going to have children that are in need of the coverage. i've seen them. i've been with them. and it's devastating. it's devastating for families. i met a couple in georgetown, he's a -- he makes six figures, his wife is a scot & white doctor, they had a child who is sick, that child is having to qualify for medicaid. medicaid is there in the safety net because the costs are so greta families need it. simply doing a free market solution as he describes by itself is not working now. i'm not saying move to a single course payment but we've got to fund medicaid. we have to do that. if you want to talk about raising taxes, i'm not afraid of that.
i'm not afraid of it at all. there are things in this country that are too important to do away with. social security, medicare, medicaid, are too important for taos lose because someone won't raise taxes. >> we have one more question on health care, i'm going to ask you to be brief so we can speak briefly about foreign policy this question first for mr. cruz. there's been a big discussion about women's contraception at the federal level. should an employer who personally opposes health insurance that covers birth control be required to offer contraception coverage to female employees or should individual employers have the right to decide and deny that coverage. should all women get the same thing? >> of course the federal government should not be forcing catholic hospitals, catholic charities to violate their religious beliefs.
this is an issue that's been subject to a lot of demagoguery. it's not about access to contraception. no one is talking about denying access to contraceptions. >> but having it under a insurance plan. >> this is crossing a fundamental threshold. the democratic party for years was proud to be the first major party to nominate the first two catholics to be a candidate for president of the united states. and i would ask, what would an al smith or a john f. kennedy think of a president who says that catholic -- to catholic hospitals, to catholic charity, change your religious briefs or i'll use my power as president to shut down your hospitals and charities? >> you believe an entity that does not believe contraception should be covered should have the right to say no? >> yes, i believe the first right in our bill of rights is the right of religious liberty. as solicitor general of texas i was proud to defend religious liberty for the state of texas in front of the u.s. supreme court. thatnk it's tragic
president obama and the national democrats are stepping on the religious liberty of catholic charities and catholic churches. i think that's wrong. we should be standing for everybody's religious liberty. >> mr. sadler, same question. should plorse be able to make a decision whether to cover birth control and contraception? >> i think women should have the right to contraception, regardless. i do. and i think it should be included in the policies. this issue has been resolved in my mind, i think, i just think this is an easey decision. women are adults. they have the right to contraception. it's a federal issue, it's a personal issue, it's a health issue. and how many times have we heard mr. cruz tonight blame the democrats? do you want to know what's wrong with this country? we spend so much time blaming each other. we can talk friendly to each other and we can find bipartisan solutions. if we cant to -- if we want to.
that he could die any moment now. if he dies soon, should the u.s. change its policy? >> if fidel castro dies, he has been a cruel and impressive tyrant but his brother raul is still a dictator ruling cuba. i hope if and when fidel castro dies, he seems to have defied all expectations up to this point, that it will lead to change in cuba. i don't think we should change our foreign policy to cuba unless and until they stop being an oppress i totalitarian state that imprisons and tortures its citizens. i'm hopeful that when fidel castro dice, and it may take raul castro dying as well, we
can change. >> mr. sadler? >> i agree with him. i think you have to see what comes after. see what our policies are after that. >> thank you very much. peggy has a question for mr. sadler. >> tens of thousands of people have been killed in the mexico drug war. would you support an increase of presence of the national guard at the u.s.mexico border in light of this? >> we have done that, we have 26,000 border agents up from 15,000 during president bush's tenure, we have the right to defend our border and we should. that's why we have to secure the border. this is a complex issue in many -- in many respects. it takes cooperation between the yeats and mexico. as you know, i'm sure, there was an agreement back in 2008, i believe it was, between the united states and mexico where we helped with technical support and votes in aircraft to
help with the war on drugs and the cartels in mexico. this is something we have to continue to balance because we're stuck in these stereotypes. el paso, if the people of texas don't know this, el paso is the safest city in america for a city its size. we have safe cities an communities along our border. this is a great economic engine for our state. these are great communities, this is important, we have to stop thinking in terms of such violence in the valley and el paso because it's not the truth of what's going on in the state. >> there are people with concerns, however, should we increase the national guard? >> if it's necessary and needed and we can assist in curtailing drug activity, we should. we have -- we have to protect our citizens.
>> mr. cruz? >> i already said, we should trip they will u.s. border patrol. the question raised is a very important question. mexico is a great and mighty nation. and it is tragic what is happening in mexico. it is tragic the violence. i was visiting with a mexican businessman some time ago who described to me how he receive fled drug lords a letter that detailed where every one of his grandkids had been for the last week minute by minute. it is tragic what's happening in mexico. i think the united states should work cooperatively with mexico help the mexican government solve this problem, stop the violence and stop the drug lords that are terrorizing so many innocent citizens. >> national guard as well? >> more funding for the mexican military? >> i think we should work cooperatively. the danger with funding is
unfortunately one of the real problems mexico is struggling with is corruption. its rule of law is so imperiled right now, i don't think we should be sending money when there's a risk of corruption. but we should work cooperatively to help solve the problem. >> we've had this agreement in place and it worked well. i think we have great cooperation with our past president of mexico and i think the new president-elect is supportive as well. >> in the few minutes we have left, we want to hear from each of you and we want you to tell the voters about one personal decision that you've made that exemplifies the kind of character you'd be taking to the u.s. senate. you each have a minute. mr. cruz you go first. >> i want to actually point to two decisions. muchit is -- there's so partisanship right now in washington. and it is relatively rare to see leaders willing to stand up to those in their own party.
when i was the solicitor general of texas serving under greg babbot, the biggest case i dealt with was medellin vs. the state of texas. the president of the united states, who was a republican, issued an order to the state of texas to obey me world court and a as solicitor general i was proud to go before the u.s. supreme court, oppose a republican president of the united states and defend u.s. sovereignty. the second decision i would point to, how we conducted this campaign from day one. there are career politicians in both parties in washington. who they they're above the law. who make decisions to get elected and re-elected. our campaign has been based on the groose roots. we have gone to literally hundreds of ihops and v.f.w. halls and denny's and the strength of the campaign has been grass roots across texas because elected representatives work for the people of texas. >> thank you, mr. cruz. mr. sadler. something that you decided or done in your life that you think exemplifies the kind of
character that you would take to washington. >> character is formed over a lifetime. my mother and father probably, not probably, did and still -- did instill some great things and qualities and try to teach me about life but honestly the one that i think probably tested our family's character more than anything was the injury to our youngest son. when he was involved in the auto accident. when you have a child that's been seriously injured, he was in a coma for four and a half days, and your life gets put on hold. and we faced the prospect of losing a child. you learn pretty quick what's important. where your priorities are. from a personal character standpoint that's without question the most important event that's happened in all our lives in our family.
from a legislative standpoint, character and integrity is all you have. and being chairman of the committee doing the things that mr. cruz talks about requires character every single day. you don't get chairmanships and you don't get named 10 best without having character. and that experience has value. it has value for our state. it has value for our nation. it always has in this state. i hope the people of texas will take a look at that because it's very important. >> i'm told we have about a minute and a half left. >> i spoke too quick. >> has that ever happened? >> occasionally but not often. usually we run out of time. in the last minute and a half we have. when you go to washington you'll take many skills with you. but there's always a learning curve on something. there's something where you're going to have to rely on others to get up to speed. what is the one thing, mr. cruz,